[0:03] like to call this meeting to order. Welcome here everyone. At this moment, I

[0:08] would like to give the opening to councelor Michael Sw.

[0:11] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Members of council will likely recall that at the last

[0:16] council meeting, councelor Semons noted that he was giving his last opening at a

[0:20] council meeting. Well, I'm in a similar situation since this will be also my

[0:25] last time that I give the opening at a council meeting. And since this is my

[0:30] last opening, I felt it was appropriate to share some general reflections about

[0:35] municipal politics and good city governance, I don't plan to get in into

[0:40] anything too personal at this point because I'll likely share some thoughts

[0:43] at the final council meeting in October. In addition, we still have several

[0:48] meetings to go before this council term ends, and I don't believe in saying

[0:52] goodbye until it's actually time to say goodbye. Plus, I still have until

[0:56] September 22nd to get my nomination paper in, if I suddenly change my mind

[1:00] about the whole provincial politics thing. I've been on part of council now

[1:05] for five council terms, which means that I've been on city council for 20 years.

[1:10] Well, 20 years is far from a record-breaking length of time to serve

[1:14] on council is definitely longer than average. And being on council for 20

[1:19] years has given me a unique opportunity to see the inner workings of our city.

[1:24] As a result, I think it's appropriate for me to shed some light on some

[1:29] things. However, if you're hoping that I'm going to reveal some deep dark

[1:34] secret about our city governance or expose the hidden corruption at the

[1:38] highest levels or reveal that all members of council are actually

[1:42] Freemasons who are in the pocket of George Soros and helping to bring in a

[1:46] one world government, you're going to be sorely disappointed.

[1:50] So, the first thing I've noticed is that we have an absolutely fantastic staff

[1:55] here in the city of Steinbeck. Now, I know it's expected for politicians to

[2:00] say nice things about their staff, but in this case, I mean it quite sincerely.

[2:05] Our staff members are highly professional and they do a great job of

[2:10] getting council members the information that we need to make good decisions.

[2:14] I'll never forget a council meeting several years ago when I was in the

[2:18] mayor's chair and we had an applicant during a public hearing who happened not

[2:23] to be from this area was trying to get support for his project. And now in his

[2:28] report to us, city manager Troy Workington had highlighted some concerns

[2:32] that staff had about the proposal. And in a poorly thoughtout attempt to get

[2:38] buy in from council, the applicant urged us during the hearing to ignore what the

[2:43] bureaucrats were saying and just go with our judgment instead. And I remember

[2:48] shooting right back at this applicant that in Steinbeck we don't call our

[2:52] staff members bureaucrats. We regard them as professionals. So, on behalf of

[2:56] all of us in council, I want to say thank you to our staff for all the

[3:00] incredible work that you do on a day-to-day basis for us. A second thing

[3:06] I want to note is that our council meetings, and this is over the 20 years

[3:10] I've been on council, are run well. I've served with two outstanding mayors, and

[3:16] one thing that Mayor Girtson and Mayor Funk have in common is they both know

[3:20] the importance of keeping council meetings focused and on topic. As a

[3:24] result, our public council meetings typically last only about an hour or so

[3:30] with the exception of when we have a contentious public hearing. And that is

[3:34] fine. That's because there's nothing inherently noble about having lengthier

[3:39] meetings. Longer doesn't necessarily mean better. I'm proud of how well our

[3:44] meetings are run, how respectful we are to each other during a debate, and how

[3:50] professional we look during the meeting. And it's too bad that more people don't

[3:54] check out the YouTube videos of our council meetings because I think there's

[3:58] value in them and I'm quite proud to showcase the way that we do things in

[4:01] our city. Finally, I'm pleased that our city over the years has remained focused

[4:06] on areas that legitimately fall within municipal jurisdiction. We really do

[4:12] focus on basic infrastructure, on police and fire protection, and on recreation

[4:18] projects for our community. I'm proud that we don't spend our time

[4:22] making symbolic climate emergency declarations or issue a different

[4:27] proclamation for a new cause every week or raise multiple flags in front of city

[4:31] hall. Instead, we keep focused on the basics and that helps to keep our city

[4:37] great. As I mentioned at the outset, this council term is not quite done, so

[4:41] this is not goodbye. We've got a lot of work left to do, starting with the

[4:45] public hearings that we have coming right up. So, let's get to it. Thank

[4:49] you, Mr. Mayor, >> thank you. Councelor Swagstra,

[4:54] uh, council, we have the agenda in front of us. Looking for a motion to adopt.

[4:59] Councelor Heert, second by councelor Penner. Call for the question. All in

[5:03] favor? Oppose? That is carried. Council, we have the minutes of August 18th,

[5:08] 2026, the regular council meeting. They start on page one. We've all had a

[5:13] chance to review. Looking for a motion to approve. Councelor Heert, second by

[5:17] councelor Seammens. Uh, call for the question. All in favor?

[5:21] » I was missing from that meeting. I don't think it was extended.

[5:23] » We were gonna I'll get that right right away.

[5:27] » Okay. Yeah. Call for the question. All in favor? Post that is carried.

[5:32] » Are there any business rising from the minutes?

[5:36] » Motion to excuse Penner from that meeting. Yeah, we will uh I have a note

[5:41] here to excuse councelor Susan Penner from the August 18th council meeting

[5:46] » and >> and also we'll excuse councelor Damian

[5:49] Penner from today's meeting as well. So call for the questionot.

[5:54] » I mean uh motion motion to approve. >> Councelor Heert, second by councelor

[5:58] Heert. Call for the question. All those in favor

[6:02] that council will move directly into the public hearings. We've got 6A. This is

[6:09] the reasonzoning bylaw 2285. This is referring [clears throat] to 58 Geese

[6:15] Street. At this time, council, I will close the council meeting, open the

[6:20] public hearing, and Mr. Warine, could you please introduce this file?

[6:26] » Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, zoning bylaw 2285 uh for property with a civic

[6:32] address of 58 East Geese Street. Uh, is being applied for by Jordan Loen with

[6:36] the owner of the property being 3XL Holdings, LTD. Uh purpose of bylaw 2285

[6:43] uh is to reszone the subject property from RLD residential low density to RMD

[6:48] residential medium density to permit a multif family development to be

[6:51] constructed. Notices as are required under the planning act have been issued.

[6:56] There is one item of correspondence on file a copy of which was given to

[7:00] council in their mail bins earlier today. Um in addition to that, community

[7:06] planning office indicates that uh there are no provincial concerns identified

[7:11] with this application. Um the uh subject property is a double lot and it

[7:17] presently contains a single uh unit dwelling structure. The applicant

[7:21] proposes uh as was mentioned to develop a a two-story 12-unit multi-unit

[7:26] residential structure on the site. Uh the adjacent land parcel to the west of

[7:31] the subject property is also zoned RMD. Uh the uh proposal would also be subject

[7:37] to the city's infill policy. Recommendation from administration is

[7:41] for council to approve second reading to this bylaw subject to a development

[7:44] agreement and subject to any new evidence that may be provided at this

[7:47] public hearing. >> Thank you, Mr. Wardine. Um is the

[7:51] applicant here today? >> Yeah.

[7:53] » Do you wish to speak? Okay,

[7:57] » just uh take the podium, get your [clears throat] name and address and um

[8:01] then continue. >> Good evening. My name's uh Jordan Lohan.

[8:06] I live at Triple 4 Hler Street South in Steinbeck. Uh bought this property, got

[8:11] possession this year. Uh thought it was a good uh property to add some density

[8:17] to our kind of inner mile of Steinbeck that's regoing a lot of rework. the

[8:23] properties towards its end of its life cycle

[8:26] um uh with the large lot uh and only going

[8:32] two stories for RMD which allows three stories. I thought it could fit with the

[8:36] neighborhood uh I counted 13 RMD lots uh within a block and a half uh of infill.

[8:44] So that's down First Street the corner of Ellis and Geese. There's a couple

[8:48] other ones before you get to Wood Haven. Um I have a site plan that's uh meets

[8:54] all the requirements of uh issuing a permit I suppose uh site uh setbacks

[9:01] required parking dumpster recycling landscaping buffering I'll have to get a

[9:06] lock rating plan to address all the drainage of course um yeah I think it it

[9:11] is a good fit and fits with the direction the city wants to go with

[9:15] revitalizing some of the older areas so >> okay thank you councel Any questions for

[9:21] the applicant? I see none at this time. So, um, we'll

[9:27] probably call you up later on for sure. Okay.

[9:30] Is there anyone here with comments, questions, or objections to this file?

[9:37] Okay. Yeah. Take the podium. Yeah. And again, I'll I'll have it just

[9:43] state your name and your address because everything's recorded and then you can

[9:47] go ahead. >> Okay. Um, we're Christa and Ryan Vote.

[9:52] Um, we live at 17 Westview Place. Um, our property is directly affected by the

[9:59] proposed development at 58 GB Street. Um, we've lived there since 2013. It's

[10:06] been uh pretty much an open field in the back. There's uh Swift and all that

[10:11] stuff there. where the like depending how far this is going to be set back.

[10:16] This is going to be directly in our backyard.

[10:20] There's mature trees back there. It's a beautiful setting.

[10:24] Uh we're worried about privacy. Uh we're worried about the lights. We're

[10:29] worried about people cutting through our properties to get to their places. I

[10:34] mean, people already cut through there now. Um there's also concerns of

[10:39] flooding. Gizrect already can't handle large rain, large flooding. So, how much

[10:46] more runoff is this going to make for our properties?

[10:50] Um, yeah, it's just like we're directly affected. Like, depending how far back

[10:55] this thing is going to be built, um, it's going to be pretty much right in

[10:59] our backyard.

[11:03] So, and what's that going to do to the prop like for our property value for

[11:07] resale if we want to put our house up for sale in in a few years? I mean, I

[11:13] definitely would think before, you know, having 12 units looking into my

[11:19] backyard. I mean, like I'm all for, you know,

[11:25] increasing, you know, homes in Steinback and that kind of stuff, but I think it

[11:30] needs to take consideration. Like for West View Place, depending how far back

[11:34] they put this, we're going to have, you know, traffic, we're going to have

[11:39] noise, we're going to have lights, we're going to have different people. The

[11:43] other question I have is, "Love the lights going up at the corner of Geese

[11:49] Breton and 52." Great idea. There's going to be no lefthand turns going into

[11:54] Tim Hortons, right in the mornings. What is this? What's going to happen when we

[12:01] have all these apartments and people trying to leave their places and all the

[12:04] people that go to that Tim Hortons are now going to be using Geese and First

[12:08] Street to go to Tim Hortons. There's going to be such a lineup there.

[12:14] Okay. So then I mean that just comes down to traffic concerns. Um

[12:19] » yeah, but I mean I mean you're putting >> we have like we're working on that.

[12:23] We're we are talking with the Tim Hortons. They they do have to make sure

[12:28] they can >> age everyone on their lot.

[12:31] » Really? I mean that's probably you know that's that's a later concern. But this

[12:35] is this is going to be like >> like depending how far back it is and if

[12:40] I'm correct, >> they're going to be taking down the

[12:43] house and the trees and setting it back and then we're it's it's going to be

[12:48] pretty much right in my backyard. >> Okay.

[12:53] » Mr. Mayor, >> you have to come to the podium.

[12:57] » Come to the podium. Sorry. >> No, I was just taped, right?

[13:00] » Yeah. >> We can't hear you from where you were

[13:02] talking. >> Yeah. Uh yeah, my name's Ryan Vote and I

[13:04] was just going to mention because there's also going to be that other

[13:06] complex that's probably going to be going forward in that back field. So, um

[13:11] we're just adding a lot more uh traffic to that area. Um

[13:17] we've we heard rumor that they were going to open up L 252,

[13:22] which uh which would relieve some of the the congestion there. So this will be

[13:28] because the property on Lond was just approved to build their three-story one.

[13:33] So that's already going to be back there. And then we're if they set this

[13:36] one further back, we've got two apartment buildings pretty much into

[13:40] everyone's backyards on Westview Place. >> Okay,

[13:44] » Mr. Mayor. >> Yes.

[13:46] » Are they Is this not going on lot 58? That is So that does not line up with

[13:51] Westview Place on the map. So this is a property 58

[13:56] where this proposed project is going. >> Yeah, we're right on the corner

[14:00] » and 58 is we're right on the corner. >> Yeah, this

[14:04] backyard >> 62

[14:05] » 62 and then 58 >> not right backyard but I mean it's

[14:09] enough like I already have lights shining into my place from Swift.

[14:13] » Yeah, >> already had to deal with that. I I'm

[14:17] like >> especially if it's a two

[14:19] » Okay, it's better that at least it's a twotory and not a threetory that I was

[14:23] concerned about. Yeah, that that part is better. Just concerned with how far back

[14:27] like where I I didn't get a good picture of it, but like is the parking lot going

[14:33] to be in the back or the front?

[14:38] » Yeah. Um, excuse me. I I'll I'll speak because I got a mic. Yeah, the parking

[14:43] lot will be in the front. That That's what's showing. But there will be all

[14:47] the setbacks like all like all everything's going to be observed.

[14:51] There'll be no variances needed for this build. So it'll be it'll be 25 ft from

[14:57] the property line in the back, right? Just like is what's required. Okay. So

[15:02] So that's that that is that is going to be so it's not going to be right at the

[15:07] back of the property. It won't be in your backyard because you do have a

[15:11] property between you and this one. >> Okay. But are those trees and all that's

[15:17] grown up there going to come down? Well, norm any anytime that like this

[15:24] will come out in the development agreement. Anytime this happens,

[15:28] there'll be plantings that have to be put in. So, there will have if trees

[15:32] come down that does sometimes happen. Yes. But trees will also be planted as

[15:36] well. So, so that there's a there's a a minimum amount of planting that has to

[15:43] happen with every development and that's in development agreement. Am I correct

[15:46] about that? Uh, Mr. working. >> Uh there are certain requirements. Uh if

[15:52] it's uh street edge landscaping, yes, there are requirements in the city

[15:56] zoning bylaw. However, for any existing uh vegetation that is on the site, that

[16:01] is uh up to the developer to determine what that landscaping plan will entail.

[16:08] » Okay. Thank you. >> And then the drainage that never got

[16:12] addressed either. >> Okay. Well, drainage. Okay. So in

[16:15] development agreement, every property as you as you redevelop

[16:20] it, you have to deal with all your water on that property. It can't put any water

[16:26] onto like any more water than already is going onto your property. It can't go

[16:30] anymore. So this will this will actually most of the time infill uh developments

[16:37] like this they actually improve drainage because there's like right now there's

[16:43] no there's nothing stopping this water from running into the swale but now this

[16:48] developer will have to come up with a development in the in agreement and he

[16:53] will have a drainage plan that will take care of the the the water on site. So he

[17:00] yeah he can't go dumping water into unless there's a unless there's a

[17:05] designated swale for everyone to drain into.

[17:08] » Okay. So it's not like it would be there'd be drainage like specifically

[17:12] for rain going right onto the street. >> Right. He can't put his he can't put his

[17:16] down spouts into the neighbor's yard. >> Right. He's got to take care of his

[17:19] water on his site. >> Yeah. No, it's just cuz Yeah. Like she

[17:23] said, the main concern is geese floods all the time. when we get heavy rain and

[17:27] all that kind of stuff like we already have to watch

[17:30] » our our crawl space or our >> what is thank you basement and stuff so

[17:35] and make sure the pump is working so you know what are 12 more units going to

[17:40] » I mean that's valid but but in the development agreement they have to the

[17:44] drainage will be taken care of for this property

[17:47] » okay >> yeah okay in the in development

[17:48] agreement but they're valid valid concerns drainage is a valid concern all

[17:53] the time because we are so flat But but that uh that that will be worked

[17:58] on with our city staff. >> All right.

[18:00] » All right. Thank you.

[18:05] » Is there anyone else? >> Okay. Go ahead.

[18:16] » My name is George WZ. I'm a resident of 30 GB for many years. Um my concern

[18:24] would be very much the same would be would be water on the street and uh you

[18:31] did mention that the every developer is looks after their water on their

[18:35] property [clears throat] but what happens to the water that comes off the

[18:39] paved lot that I've noticed that over the years

[18:43] like you guys have done a wonderful job over the years because we've been there

[18:48] a long time uh and that ditch beside us. We have a a drainage ditch beside us run

[18:54] running to the 52 that has been improved greatly over the years. However, it is

[18:59] to the point where something has to be done because there's more and more water

[19:05] accumulating on the street right in that pocket. So I am very very concerned

[19:11] about that water and I think this this any of these

[19:17] developments which with paved parking lots

[19:22] the developer can't control that water and that's going to run onto the street.

[19:27] Gizburg is already uh basically

[19:32] almost a river in a heavy rainstorm. So, I would I would urge you to take a

[19:40] serious look at at some other solution to that to that problem of that

[19:46] accumulating water there because the that ditch just does not keep up. And

[19:51] you have you have another development kitty corner to us coming up. That

[19:57] development's driveway is going to be right in the center of that pool of

[20:02] water. And you're going to have some very very upset people when once that

[20:06] development is up and they're trying to leave their property and they won't be

[20:10] able to because cars are stalling out left, right, and center in that pool of

[20:14] water. So I would urge you to to take a serious look at that.

[20:20] » Well, at the at the time of development of that lot, there will be a development

[20:24] agreement and drainage will be addressed at that time with that lot. So, so

[20:29] » well that lot that lot has already been approved.

[20:33] » Yes, but the it's been approved but the the has there been work done on it

[20:39] already? >> Yes.

[20:39] » Okay. Well, then there's there'll be a there'll be a drainage plan that's tied

[20:44] to that permit. >> Okay.

[20:46] » Okay. So that that will that drainage plan will will be uh will have to be

[20:52] executed executed by the developer and that will will that should most likely

[21:00] make that that area that drainage better. Like I'm not a I'm not an

[21:04] engineer. I'm not a like I don't look at like I don't know how to necessarily

[21:09] drain water other than your drainage the lowest spot.

[21:12] » But but our engineers work with the developers. They look at each piece of

[21:16] land and they they do make the drainage better when those properties are are

[21:21] filled in. Back back in the day when Greece geese was built there that would

[21:27] have predated development plans that would have been predated uh drainage

[21:32] plans and that's that but now as we're developing we're in we're improving

[21:37] those drainage plans. >> So

[21:39] » when you look at that a lot of times infill development improves the

[21:43] drainage. Mhm. Well, I I I again I I just want to stress that this needs to

[21:49] really be seriously looked at. >> Thank you.

[21:51] » Yep. The other concern I would have like someone else here mentioned is is

[21:56] traffic. Um yes, there's lights going up there which are going to help. Uh, but

[22:03] Gizbrebrick is kind of a main artery out of that whole area of of Steinbeck. And

[22:09] I'm just wondering if there isn't a possibility of opening up some other

[22:14] arteries. I think the property right beside Lond is actually a street, is it

[22:20] not? Lond Lond.

[22:25] Um where we Well, we're not actually we need to focus on this this uh this

[22:32] hearing right now. We're talking about 58 East, right?

[22:35] » Yes, we are. >> And and so you have you have traffic

[22:38] concerns. >> Yes.

[22:40] » And that's good. I I to start guessing where what's going to happen with L

[22:48] where that's going to be what what kind of drainage plans going to be for that

[22:51] for lot 81 and 80 as they develop. I don't I don't want to get into that. We

[22:56] want to focus on >> geese

[22:59] » 58 greet. That's what we're talking about today.

[23:02] » Thank you. >> And and yes, the traffic is directly

[23:07] affected though like >> so that is that is the is the second

[23:11] concern I have. >> Okay.

[23:15] » Thank you. >> Thank you very much.

[23:23] » Any anyone else? Go ahead. Yeah. >> Hi. Uh Trevor Newfeld. I live at 316

[23:30] McKenzie in Steinbeck here. And um I ju I was just uh just had a few thoughts

[23:36] and questions, concerns I guess about this property. um uh the the previous

[23:42] man who was uh speaking here, I believe that the the connection for him, I

[23:47] realize he was uh maybe speaking about another property, but his wisdom of see

[23:54] his idea about the opinions addresses uh of of different places, I should say, um

[24:00] rather than just possibly putting this addition or this building on this

[24:04] property would sort of address um city planning as opposed to developer for

[24:10] setting up an opportunity to earn extra income. And I guess that is uh is is I

[24:16] think that's a valid question um for this and and others as well. Does the

[24:22] city have a plan um instead of infill that would be more appropriate and less

[24:28] damaging potentially for the immediate residents? That could also gain um uh

[24:35] the amount of people that you want to bring in, the tax increases, the

[24:40] revenue, the business uh business, what potential all that. Um, one thing I had

[24:46] heard the developer talking about was um I may have mis I may have misunderstood

[24:52] but end of he saying it has sort of reached its end of life um home. I I I'm

[24:58] not sure about clarification on that. We're living in a beautiful home built

[25:02] in 1943. That home is a lot newer than our home. Not saying that every home has

[25:07] been built at the same quality, but unless I misunderstood, I don't think a

[25:11] home is at It's like a car. it will keep working till you stop fixing it. U so to

[25:16] say that a home is at the end of its life, if I understood that correctly, is

[25:21] I think it's very inaccurate. It's opportunistic. Um I get that. Um the

[25:27] fact that there's an open lot beside it as well. Um, I would imagine that like

[25:32] if you're replacing one family with 12 families or 20 or 24, I mean in this

[25:39] case 12, but in in any situation, why that many to replace one residential

[25:46] property of one family with 12 families and

[25:51] that's small compared to what some are that are being done. That's huge for the

[25:57] residents. So for these these folks and others who probably are too scared to

[26:01] come up here and talk I I think that um it's not maybe necessarily we can say

[26:06] it's not right in their backyard uh or as it was said it's maybe adjacent or

[26:13] whatever. I didn't didn't look at the map on that. But I mean, imagine for all

[26:17] of for all of you if I could get each one of your addresses and use AI to put

[26:23] a 24 12plex, 20 plex, whatever on your neighbor's property,

[26:30] it becomes personal and it's not personal for me to say that because any

[26:34] well, it's not any more personal that way than for um this to be approached to

[26:40] them, right? So, I mean, you you >> [laughter]

[26:43] » Every single one of us can potentially with the idea of let's go with

[26:48] development, we can all potentially if we don't respect the the zoning that is

[26:53] already in place and use future planning city planning to go whoa he has a point.

[27:01] Maybe we can use future areas like I've seen in some cities they have a

[27:06] beautiful zone of residential like low low density and they keep it that way.

[27:10] Then they have right maybe next to it they've got different levels. So that's

[27:14] that's a thought. Um in this case why not build a duplex or if if they want to

[27:21] develop develop a property on a home on each property. That'll bring in much

[27:25] more income. Not as much as a 12plex but a lot of the rent people who are going

[27:30] to rent these 12plexes also potentially long term aren't going to look after it

[27:35] necessarily as well. We've seen that in other places and even some of them along

[27:40] McKenzie that have been built in the last few years. There's a whole run of

[27:43] them there. Will you support homeowners, counselors and mayor and deputy mayor,

[27:48] will you support homeowners that have been paying very good tax money already?

[27:54] Um, and think about that in the infill opportunities that will be presented and

[28:01] are being presented. Would you enjoy or accept this in yours? Um

[28:06] uh why would the developers not maybe first go and try to choose lots that are

[28:13] available? I've checked there are some that are available for this exact type

[28:18] of thing. I'm not sure. I think it's less expensive maybe for the developer

[28:23] to do it here as opposed to others. I'm not sure. Um makes sense maybe. Um tree

[28:30] replacement. I said a clarification question on your um because you said

[28:35] something about if trees are going to be cut down they will be replaced.

[28:38] Fantastic. 100 million% support that. But if we look at precedents

[28:44] um McKenzie down um a massive forest was taken down. I don't know how many 12 24

[28:53] plexes are in there right now. Literally from one balcony to the next. They can

[28:58] almost reach over and shake hands. I'm exaggerating, but it's extremely close.

[29:03] And some may don't mind living there, and that's that's fine, but a massive

[29:07] force was taken down for that. I was really hoping to see some sort of um

[29:12] activities, you know. So, I know I'm getting off topic, but that is just to

[29:16] address that issue. Where will those trees be planted? How many were taken

[29:21] down? And where will those be replanted? Um, yeah, I guess that's all I have to

[29:26] say for now. >> Thank you.

[29:32] Go ahead.

[29:37] Um, my name is Hannah. We live at 54 GB Street, which is right beside this

[29:41] property. Um, oh, went sideways. Um, we just bought this

[29:48] property a year ago. And one of the things we really loved was all the trees

[29:53] right beside and most of them are in our neighbor's yard, um, which we don't have

[29:57] any control over. Um, so one of my concerns is with this development coming

[30:01] in, I realize a lot of these trees are probably going to get cut down and a lot

[30:05] of that privacy between our two properties is going to disappear. Um, is

[30:11] I granted that I'm assuming this apartment is going to take up most of

[30:14] the width of the property. Is there plans to put a fence up or anything for

[30:18] privacy between the yards? >> Okay.

[30:21] Uh, we'll have the developer come back and answer these questions. Uh, I'm I'm

[30:25] making notes. >> Perfect. Uh, so that's question one. Um,

[30:30] question two is there is, uh, you can see on the property there is a tree that

[30:33] is on our yard, but it is sticking over into theirs. Um, so I'm worried that as

[30:38] they're, uh, building some of that tree will get, um, trimmed, and I'm not sure

[30:45] how well that tree will survive. Um, so yeah, I guess my concern is that tree

[30:50] would from our property would be damaged from the development.

[30:56] Um, and I guess my last question is, um, if

[31:02] this does go through, how soon would it get built? Um, just curiosity of, yeah,

[31:08] we have, we have a newborn, so just want to know when we can expect a lot of

[31:12] noise right beside us. Um, I think that's all I have. Thank you.

[31:17] » Thank you.

[31:24] » Okay. Is there anyone else with comments, questions, or objections?

[31:29] Okay, I'll ask the developer if you did you want to come and answer some of

[31:34] those questions. If you uh I don't know if you you I saw

[31:38] you taking notes, too, but uh I also have some notes. If you uh

[31:44] » I'll run through them and see if we can tick as many boxes as we can here um to

[31:49] the votes. Um yeah, you were wondering about setback. It'll be 25 ft from the

[31:54] rear. That's as close as we can go. [clears throat]

[31:58] As far as trees, existing part of the allure of infill is

[32:05] the existing trees. If we can keep the trees, that's great. That's part of the

[32:10] reason this makes sense. Um, the other reason, uh, Mr. Newfeld, right? Um, you

[32:16] said it's it's cheaper. It depends a little bit on it. Like going and buying

[32:21] a new RMD lot, going three stories new bare land in a field. It can be cheaper.

[32:28] It can be more expensive. It depends a bit on the density and the price of the

[32:31] lot. But in general, because I'm not going three stories, I can't put as many

[32:36] doors on this. It probably is more expensive than going and buying an empty

[32:41] lot. Um, but the advantage, the reason that I would do it or do do it is

[32:47] because, um, I talked to one of the owners of Swift and he's got a guy that

[32:52] rents down First Street and like the walkability. Um, home ownership's

[32:57] getting tougher and tougher. People need a place to live and rent. So to have,

[33:02] you know, a couple hundred jobs down the road at at rest haven nursing home

[33:05] that's walkable, Swift, Loen, our biggest employer in Steinach, to be

[33:10] within walking and biking distance to work. That's part of the reason these

[33:14] infills work. And when you go down Wood Haven further or McKenzie West, you get

[33:20] a little further from the industry, which then makes people drive, which

[33:24] makes them, you know, less desirable to some people if they don't have cars.

[33:29] » [gasps] >> Um, so 25 ft. We'll try to keep as many

[33:33] trees. One, it costs money to cut trees down and haul them away. And two, we

[33:38] want more trees. They're good. They help uh and the less trees I then have to

[33:43] plant as well because you get credit for existing trees if they stay. Um

[33:49] part of a development agreement is uh if a residential medium density

[33:55] property gets developed next to single or low density, you have to fence the

[34:00] property line. So there will be a fence around the property if you're worried

[34:04] about cutting. Um it'll be fenced. Um the flooding concerns um just so you

[34:12] know um I have to pay an engineer, a civil engineer to develop a plan. They

[34:18] come and survey it and there's something called runoff coefficients and when it

[34:23] rains, think of the property more like uh a bucket that you poke a pen through.

[34:30] It's a metered amount that's allowed to come onto a street or into a ditch. It's

[34:35] not like a plate where it can all just spill off the parking lot. So that's

[34:38] part of applying for a permit and getting a development. So I wouldn't

[34:43] know this for sure, but right now the way it is, it can just run off where it

[34:47] wants. I would suspect that once there's a plan in place, it will actually

[34:51] release less water as quickly into the city right away [clears throat] than it

[34:57] does now. That would be my guess because you're only allowed to release so much.

[35:02] Um, you were concerned about light spillage. Uh there is a bylaw actually

[35:07] for light spillage in parking lot lighting. Um LED lights are endlessly

[35:12] penetrating now. So if it's exterior lighting, it's supposed to be shielded

[35:16] in parking lots. And then the pot lights that might go in a set or on a balcony

[35:21] should be downward. So um traffic lights are going up should be

[35:28] ready this fall which helps. Uh Mr. W you talked about uh street and yeah the

[35:35] road is a designated a collector itself it's it's supposed to be able to handle

[35:40] this now whether it does or parking or the traffic and Tim Hortons that's

[35:45] probably outside my control but the actual street itself is designated as a

[35:50] collector street. Um that's the majority of um Hannah right

[35:58] um you moved in a year ago. We're going to fence it. I if that tree is like

[36:05] until it's staked out, we don't know for sure. But if I can keep it, the building

[36:09] is set back from the property line 6 ft, 6 or 8 ft, I forget exactly. So, the

[36:16] satellite may not get exact line of sight over top where it is, but we may

[36:20] have to prune some of the branches on our side, but we would do everything we

[36:23] can to to keep the tree for sure. And uh if this does go ahead, I do the building

[36:29] and contracting too. So I'll give you my cell number. And uh if you ever have

[36:33] concerns or you know depending on nap schedule, I've had four kids. I know

[36:37] that that that can be a thing that you know we'll there's also noise bylaws for

[36:43] how early we can start and stuff. So I'll give you my number. We can figure

[36:47] out and if there's concerns you can call or text me anytime.

[36:52] » I think that's most I don't know >> a timeline. I know it's going to take

[36:56] » Oh yeah, it for sure won't be. It for sure won't be this year. Soonest would

[37:00] be after road restrictions next year. So June, that'd be like the absolute

[37:05] soonest it would happen. So >> thank you.

[37:13] Uh I will before I close the public hearing ask one more time, is there

[37:16] anyone else with comments, questions or objection to this file?

[37:21] Okay, seeing none, I will close the public hearing. Open the council

[37:25] meeting. Council, how would you like to proceed?

[37:29] » Council Speaker. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'll make a motion

[37:32] to approve. >> Second by councelor Heert. Go ahead,

[37:35] Councelor Special. >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to

[37:38] thank the applicant for uh presenting the plans clearly and also neighbors and

[37:42] other residents for coming out and uh and expressing their their thoughts and

[37:47] asking questions. Uh whenever we look at a potential resoning like this, we have

[37:52] a public hearing like what we're doing now where we hear the information that's

[37:55] presented and we do our best to come uh to a decision. Uh in this case here,

[38:00] there are a number of factors that point in favor of allowing the reszoning. Uh

[38:04] one of those is that um uh there is already uh a property right behind it

[38:08] that is currently zoned uh residential medium density. So, uh, the fact that

[38:13] this is right beside that that, uh, it's not it's not that uncommon at all to

[38:18] have one residential property be a medium density property beside another.

[38:23] Uh, the chain, this is a large lot, uh, much larger than your typical, you know,

[38:29] single lot that you're going to see built uh, happen now in Steinach. And

[38:34] so, this large lot will now have 12 units. Uh on the face of it, going from

[38:39] 1 to 12 sounds like a lot, but in the world of medium density, it's actually

[38:43] not a massive increase, especially when you consider the size of the lot. It's

[38:46] only going to be twotory, which frankly many houses are two stories. And so, um

[38:53] you got 12 units on a large lot. That is not uncommon for a residential medium

[38:58] density. Um as far as the question that was raised regarding traffic, uh well,

[39:03] what would the impact be? Well, my estimate would be that if you have 12

[39:06] units, you'd probably have 12 cars. Um, so maybe 12 extra cars per day. Is that

[39:13] likely to have a massive impact on Gizburg Street? No. I mean, there's a

[39:17] lot of traffic on Gizburg Street. A lot of people driving through Gizburg

[39:20] Street. Frankly, with a lot of collector streets, the main traffic isn't actually

[39:23] from the people who live right there. It's the traffic from all the people

[39:26] that are trying to get from one place to the other that are going through there.

[39:30] And obviously we know that there are issues in the area. That's why we've

[39:34] been lobbying the province for years to finally put those lights in. And they

[39:39] the province says those lights are actually going in this year. And that's

[39:42] and that's good. But I we should not look at 58 G Street as a significant

[39:47] impact on the traffic because again 12 cars that's probably what uh what the

[39:53] impact is going to be which in the grand scheme of thing is not is not a huge

[39:56] difference. uh drainage concerns. I think been adequately addressed here

[39:59] that um uh that whenever a property is redeveloped then there is a development

[40:04] agreement where water has to be held on the property and can only be released at

[40:07] a certain a certain uh pace which the applicant has explained very well and

[40:12] very clearly and uh the question was raised you know as far as why here and

[40:17] why not somewhere else. Well, it's always a question that that can be asked

[40:21] whenever you have any kind of resoning. Um, and yes, it is true that when

[40:26] developers build these types of properties, they are hoping to earn

[40:30] money from it. But I want to be clear that if you don't have if developers

[40:34] don't earn money from projects, you have no development. So yes, the city has

[40:39] plans. We have our we have our official community plan where we set this is what

[40:43] the general categories are, where we expect growth to occur. We have our

[40:47] zoning bylaw which is more specific as far as the exact zoning categories. But

[40:52] the city doesn't do development. The city doesn't build neighborhoods. We

[40:56] don't build houses. It would be a disaster if we didn't have private

[40:59] developers. If we if we started saying no to every development and saying that

[41:04] no, we don't want to we don't want to have development where developers are

[41:07] making money, we would just have no development. And so u not all

[41:11] developments are good. And that's why in a public hearing, um, developers and

[41:16] neighbors don't know and how it's going to go until we actually have the

[41:19] hearing. But in this case, I think that when you consider that you have a medium

[41:23] density property, uh, already right beside it, you already have uh, you have

[41:27] a large lot. It's not a massive increase in density, you know, on a medium

[41:31] density to go to 12 units. The drainage will be addressed. It's not a

[41:35] significant impact on traffic when you look at the grand scheme of things. And

[41:38] frankly, I think that the applicant did an extremely good job of answering the

[41:41] questions and presenting a clear and comprehensive plan. So based on all

[41:44] those factors, I think it's it's reasonable to approve the resoning.

[41:48] » Thank you, counselor. Anything further? >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I will first

[41:53] of all make uh a point that I live on one of those streets that has 200

[41:56] apartments right on my street and I'm okay with it. Actually, impacts, traffic

[42:00] impact is actually not bad at all, and I have good neighbors down the street. Uh

[42:05] there's it's a solid place as far as that goes. Secondly, I want to just say

[42:09] I agree with what councelor Sora has said, but the lot behind this lot is for

[42:14] medium density and there's going to be medium density there in the future. So

[42:17] they basically attach to each other. The fact that it is basically not against

[42:21] any other property right now, I think speaks well for it. And as far as

[42:26] traffic goes, like councelor Swager says, I don't think that will be an

[42:29] issue and especially with the lights going on on 52. So, no, I have I have no

[42:33] problem with it. I I appreciate the concerns that you all have and I think

[42:37] at the end of the day, this will turn out to be a good good thing for the

[42:40] community and for the neighborhood. Thank you.

[42:43] » Anything further, council? Go ahead, council.

[42:46] [clears throat] >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh just a couple

[42:50] comments. I'll vote in favor of of the motion as stated. Just a couple

[42:54] comments. Uh 52 feet from my patio door is a

[42:59] three-story building. There's nine balconies that look on my deck, so I do

[43:04] know what that feels like. And uh we moved there and uh there was an addition

[43:08] done and I'm okay with it. Uh very okay with it. So I understand what it is, but

[43:14] I also stand understand the threat of somebody building in your neighborhood.

[43:18] Uh it's very real and there are concerns and uh but they can be alleviated. I

[43:23] appreciate uh the response by the developer. That's important. My son also

[43:28] lives on Geese. He lives across the street from Mr. Wis and I know full well

[43:34] the amount of water that flows down that street when when the creeks start to

[43:38] back up in Steinbeck and that doesn't start in Steinbeck that starts in the

[43:43] arm of Hanover and that whole creek backs up. It backs up a long way when

[43:47] there's a torrential downpour. We're very flat and our streets become the

[43:52] collector. That's how we can't build pipes big enough to uh take all the

[43:57] water all the time. there's just uh not financially feasible. So there we we do

[44:03] have a lot of water and I was driving down that street the last big rain. So

[44:07] there those are also concerns but I also appreciate the fact uh our engineering

[44:12] department our development agreement it works over and over it has worked where

[44:17] only x amount of water is able to be released and it was explained as a

[44:21] bucket with a hole in it. Uh that is one way to explain it but it does work and

[44:27] uh hopefully it does work here too. Hopefully I say hopefully I'm also not

[44:30] an engineer. Uh but I've seen it it works and it works. One of the issues we

[44:35] have in Stein we have a lot of growth and uh growth is painful in many ways

[44:40] and uh this is part of it. When we talk about infill we talk about uh what that

[44:45] looks like. all these multif family homes going in in Steinbeck all over the

[44:52] place and before they're completed they're full they're rented we don't

[44:56] have vacancies in Steinbeck so uh it is also critical that we continue to uh

[45:01] invite the people that live in Steinbeck I don't know where they all come from

[45:04] and I don't know where they all work uh and all those but I do know that uh we

[45:10] look at our our long-term plan we look at our short-term plan on a on a yearly

[45:14] basis during our study sessions and It is important that we continue to allow

[45:19] development. Uh we do deny developments in different areas when uh it doesn't

[45:26] fit. But I do think that uh it does fit here for all the reasons that were given

[45:32] and also I appreciate the words from uh the contractor who has said yeah it's a

[45:37] walkability to to loan to a lot of the different uh businesses that are within

[45:42] walking distance. >> Thank you. Anything further of councel?

[45:48] Anything in closing? >> Well, I'd like to thank everyone for

[45:53] coming out like to thank for your comments and um you know some of the

[45:58] concern drainage is a real concern always is and that's why we are so uh

[46:02] our our staff work so hard at drainage and that's why we require all new

[46:07] development to deal with the water on their own. And as as uh Mr. Loen said

[46:14] it's Yeah. It's like it's like a filling up a bucket and letting a pinhole and

[46:19] letting it go out. That's that's how it works. Um Mr. Newfalt, um you talked

[46:25] about it being in our backyard. Um we we have moved but we a house we loved for

[46:31] many many years uh downtown here, 195 lumber. There was 72 units built behind

[46:39] us. Two two two buildings of 36. And yeah, you know what? It was scary

[46:45] when it happened. It's completely scary, but we uh with with plantings, fences,

[46:53] um setbacks, it it was amazing how beautifully it worked, right?

[46:58] » Pardon? >> You moved.

[47:01] » Oh, we only moved because we Okay, it was a health thing. We had to move.

[47:04] Okay. Uh my wife developed bad knees and we couldn't do the stairs. It was a

[47:08] two-story home. Otherwise, we'd still be there. We love that place. And um um

[47:14] yeah, it um we hardly notice the traffic. Yeah, there it it should have

[47:19] increased the traffic, but we didn't notice it because the roads are built to

[47:21] take it. Um there's there's so many things. Council's hear the story many

[47:26] many times. I'm saying this for you. Um Anna from 54 GB, we had a situation

[47:34] where there was a huge tree on our neighbor's yard and it was starting to

[47:38] really look bad. And so we asked them, we hired arborists. We asked them if we

[47:43] could trim the tree. Arbor came in, trimmed the tree. It was very expensive.

[47:49] And uh they didn't want to, they didn't want to participate in the paying of the

[47:53] arborist. That tree because it hung over it was on their property, but it was on

[47:58] our property. It ended up being the most beautiful tree of them all because we we

[48:05] actually took care of the trimming and trimmed it correctly. I do believe that

[48:09] Mr. loan will do the right thing with that tree as well. Uh I've never seen

[48:13] that before where a developer said he's going to give you your his cell phone

[48:18] number. You got a special thing there. I think you can work a great relationship

[48:22] out here with that. Uh but I do want to thank everyone for coming out. I do want

[48:27] to thank you for your concerns. But um when when you talk about like council,

[48:34] this happened to you as you can hear some of us. We've all had multif family

[48:37] in our backyard and multif family and single family dwellings can actually

[48:43] work and live very harmoniously together. They do. Uh and and we you've

[48:50] got 200. You've got I don't know how many you have, but we had 72. And it

[48:55] does work. So u call for the question. All those in

[49:00] favor? Opposed? That is carried. Thank you.

[49:10] We have 6B. This is variance V 202617.

[49:18] This is referring to 210 Hover Road West. At this time, I will close the

[49:24] council meeting, open the public hearing. Uh, Mr. Orcadine, can you

[49:29] please introduce this file?

[49:37] Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The application for variance under file V-20226-17

[49:42] for 210 Hover Road West uh is being applied for by Leonard Frail, who also

[49:49] is the owner. Purpose of the variance application is to permit an east

[49:53] sideyard setback of 10.85 85 ft for an accessory building

[49:58] uh in the DR2 development reserve 2 zone uh where that zone requires a minimum uh

[50:05] sideyard setback of 15 ft. Notices as are required under the planning act have

[50:10] been issued. There is no written correspondence on file.

[50:14] Uh the building location certificate provided uh shows an existing accessory

[50:19] building on the site uh which already has a sideyard of 10.85 ft. Uh the

[50:24] proposed building is adjacent uh as shown on the site plan um which uh is

[50:30] the purpose of the uh proposed reduced sideyard setback. Recommendation for

[50:34] council is to approve the application subject to any new information that is

[50:38] presented. >> Thank you. Mr. Working is the applicant

[50:42] here today. Do you wish to speak? >> Um I can

[50:48] again I'll ask you to take the podium. >> Yep. My name is Leonard Frail, 210

[50:53] Hanover Road West. >> Have lived there eight years.

[50:57] » We have a very good relationship with the neighbor next door to us who would

[51:02] be directly involved uh in this. And the main proposal for the the variance is

[51:09] just to line up the new building with the old building which has been there

[51:13] guessing 80 years. Um it's a very old farmstead

[51:19] and Yeah, the the line of stars on the bottom is is mature uh pine trees.

[51:26] They're about 30 40 ft high. Uh don't really want to cut those down. And so

[51:31] that's why we kind of want to set it where it is. Uh the driveway that exists

[51:36] is still from the old farmstead and so we're trying to keep it within those

[51:40] confines. >> Okay.

[51:44] Thank you very much. Uh any questions from council?

[51:47] » Yeah. Thank you. Um, you can take your seat. Is there

[51:53] anyone here with comments, questions, or objections to this file?

[52:00] Is there anyone here with comments, questions, or objections to this file?

[52:08] I will ask one more time. Is there anyone here with comments, questions, or

[52:11] objections to this file? Seeing none, I will close the public

[52:17] hearing, open the council meeting. Council, how would you like to proceed?

[52:22] Councelor Semons. >> Motion to approve.

[52:24] » Second by councelor Susan Penner. Go ahead, Council Se.

[52:28] » In 2018, the city of Steinbeck annexed a lot of land from the a friendly

[52:34] annexation from the RM of Hanover. This was and then we accept all the different

[52:39] variances and all the different properties that come with it. This is

[52:42] the property that came with that annexation and so uh what the rules that

[52:48] were under the arm of handover or 80 years ago potentially when this original

[52:52] building was built. So uh in my opinion this this works. The

[52:59] neighbors not complaining about it. They're h the neighbors are happy with

[53:02] it. It lines up uh with an existing building that was built uh many years

[53:07] ago and it's a rural property uh that has been under city jurisdiction since

[53:13] 2018 and I think it works. >> Thank you. Any further?

[53:18] » Nothing further. >> Anything further council?

[53:21] » Anything in closing? >> No sir.

[53:23] » Okay. Call question. All those in favor post? That is carried.

[53:30] Okay. Council, we have 6C. This is conditional use CU 2026-10.

[53:38] This is referring to 75 Industrial Road. It's on page 28 of our package. Uh, Mr.

[53:46] Wing, could you please introduce this?

[53:51] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Conditional use file application CU-2026-10

[53:57] for 75 industrial road is being applied for by Jordan Lohan. The owner of the

[54:02] property is one21-661 Manitoba LTD. Purpose of the conditional

[54:08] use application is twofold. Firstly, to permit the construction of an an

[54:12] industrial multi-use site as per zoning bylaw 2245 industrial

[54:18] multi-use uh is defined as a building established to accommodate a range of

[54:23] primarily industrial businesses on a single lot with individual units that

[54:27] can be rented or subdivided as part of a condominium development. And secondly,

[54:32] to permit a caretaker's residence to be located on the subject. Uh, zoning bylaw

[54:36] 2245 defines a caretaker's residence as an accessory dwelling on a

[54:41] non-residential property occupied by the person or family who oversees or guards

[54:45] the operation and it is a conditional use requirement under that zoning bylaw.

[54:51] Notices as are required under the planning act have been issued. There is

[54:54] no written correspondence on file. Uh with respect to the application um

[54:59] the subject property is located in the Steinbeck Industrial Park with land

[55:03] surrounding uh the subject zoned M2 and nearby parcel zoned M1 light industrial.

[55:10] Uh the report from the city planner provides comments with respect to the

[55:13] subject property. Uh and uh in addition uh in the application the

[55:19] actual uses or tenants of the proposed facility have not been listed. uh and

[55:24] the application indicates the intention to permit multiple tenants with multiple

[55:27] uses. Uh the application would not appear to have any negative impacts

[55:32] arising from the proposed multi-use component for the proposed caretaker's

[55:36] residence. If council is prepared to consider the approval, the applicant

[55:39] should demonstrate that it is that its proposal in the M2 heavy industrial zone

[55:44] is appropriate as this zone permits the po the most intensive types of

[55:48] industrial development which may require substantial mitigation to avoid sound

[55:52] noise or odor impacts uh for the property itself or for neighboring

[55:57] properties. Uh council should also consider if approving this residence in

[56:02] this circumstance would broaden the caretaker's residence provision uh

[56:05] beyond the intended purpose and permit general residential use on an industrial

[56:10] property uh simply by associating the occupant with general site security or

[56:15] oversight. Uh the definition uh that is provided in the zoning bylaw is quite

[56:20] clear and as the applicant intends to permit multiple tenants and multiple

[56:24] uses on the site and the functional relationship between the proposed

[56:27] resident, the dwelling and an identifiable operation that is being

[56:31] overseen or guarded uh is not clear or determined. And accordingly, a

[56:35] recommendation uh is for council to approve the proposed industrial

[56:39] multi-use component uh but to deny uh the proposed caretakers residents under

[56:44] this application. >> Thank you, Mr. Morgan. Um the

[56:49] applicant's here, would you wish to speak? Sure.

[56:59] » Uh Jordan loan triple 4. Um yeah, the owner numbered company, but he

[57:06] owns Steak Fire Protection. Um it's a hold code that owns the property. Um his

[57:12] intent, um would be that he moves on to the property uh for a couple main

[57:18] reasons. One of them, um he has a cabin, so he's there three nights a week

[57:23] through the year. Um he's got a house in Steinach as well, and to have the

[57:27] property as well is just a lot. Um, so he wants to sell his house and move on

[57:32] to the property. This would be his primary residence as the caretaker for

[57:35] the property. Um, not all dissimilar than what Fern Fzen proposed uh, two

[57:41] Junes ago, I believe, which was passed unanimously just around the corner.

[57:45] Never got built, but um, that's what he did. Um, Samic Fire Protection already

[57:51] is an operating it's the key renter on this part. It's the only one he owns it.

[57:57] uh he wants to develop some other ones and uh he doesn't know who's going to

[58:02] rent them, but it would be like the typical, you know, anywhere from a

[58:05] thousand to 2,000 square foot shops down there, whether they turn into man caves

[58:11] or light industrial or whatever. The reason for this original conditional use

[58:16] is just so the city enters into development agreement so these don't

[58:19] turn into a wild west that you don't get retail and you have parking and you have

[58:23] all your accessibility in the accessible bathrooms and all those things

[58:27] ventilation that weren't happening on these properties. So, so yes, he does

[58:32] intend to develop it. Yes, he intends to lease them, but he would be the one

[58:36] doing security on the site. Um, and his main business is the one operating there

[58:41] already. um up front as the existing building. Uh one of the other key

[58:46] reasons he wants to do this is uh he's on call 247.

[58:50] Um he does fire alarm testing and response for uh dozens, hundreds of

[58:56] buildings in southeast Manitoba. His tools, his equipment, his parts, and the

[59:00] keys to a lot of these buildings are secured in that building. So for him to

[59:05] travel to work and then to reduces his response time to a lot of these when

[59:11] bells are going at two in the morning in a multif family uh building. So that was

[59:15] one of the key reasons he uh wanted to do this as well.

[59:21] Um yeah that was most of my points here.

[59:27] And uh yeah uh the other one he does [clears throat] get a lot of people

[59:31] doorchecking here. Um, so to be on site with, you know, some cameras, motion

[59:36] detector, early response for him to hit command start on his vehicle and scare

[59:41] someone off, that would that would be a lot of value to him to protect his

[59:44] business there. So that was the other point.

[59:48] » Thank you. Uh, any questions of councel? Go ahead.

[59:51] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Where in relationship to these buildings is the

[59:55] caretaker suite going to be or is going to be a separate building?

[59:59] » Uh, no. It'll be in uh the first rectangle there to the uh above it. So,

[1:00:05] he'll be closest to his existing building in the first phase of what

[1:00:10] could be three back there. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[1:00:14] » Okay. Anything further?

[1:00:18] » Okay. Is there anyone here with comments,

[1:00:23] questions, or objections to this file?

[1:00:29] Is there anyone here with comments, questions, or objections to this file?

[1:00:36] I'll ask one more time. Is there anyone here with comments, questions, or

[1:00:39] objections to this file? Seeing none, I will close the public

[1:00:46] hearing, open the council meeting. Council, how would you like to proceed?

[1:00:50] » Councelor P. >> Uh, quick question. Is this supposed to

[1:00:54] be two separate motions because there's two points or just do it all in one?

[1:00:58] » Uh, I think it can be done in one motion.

[1:01:00] » Motion. >> Okay. I motion to approve the industrial

[1:01:03] multi-use component and to deny the proposed caretakers residence.

[1:01:08] » Do we have a seconder? Councelor Heber. >> Go ahead.

[1:01:12] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The intention of the industrial park is not for main

[1:01:16] residences nor for man caves as far as that goes. Um, industrial parks are

[1:01:21] exactly for what it says, industrial use. It is not an area we want to begin

[1:01:27] having residences. Um, and you know, if we approve this one, we are going to

[1:01:31] start getting a steady stream of people just wanting, you know, a unit to

[1:01:34] oversee their property. Um, that is not a direction I think we should be going

[1:01:40] um with this uh with our industrial parks at all and obviously not in this

[1:01:45] situation either. Thank you. Easy President.

[1:01:49] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh I did uh go buy that property and have a good look and

[1:01:54] it's a very large property that can accommodate multi-buildings

[1:01:58] on that on that lot there. Obviously, what we have is multi-buildings. We got

[1:02:03] multi-tenants and we have multi-uses. U this sounds more to me like a sort of a

[1:02:09] warehouse project. But when it comes to the the development of the caretaker

[1:02:13] suite, I know reference was made to the condominium

[1:02:18] subdivision just to the to the to the east. Uh but that one was one where the

[1:02:24] developer was in agreement and uh the uh nobody in the subdivision there objected

[1:02:30] to it. It's uh and it's a very small sub subd district, but like [clears throat]

[1:02:35] I said, it's a condominium development in uh this case. uh to have a actual

[1:02:41] residence on that lot. This is not a I I don't

[1:02:48] I I don't see how this is a caretaker's suite other than it's a straight a

[1:02:53] residential uh as as uh mentioned here and therefore uh to have a residence in

[1:03:00] the light industrial I object to. So as the motion was made I agree with the

[1:03:05] whole motion. Anything further of councel?

[1:03:09] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I I will support the motion. I'll just note here that

[1:03:13] this is uh the particular zoning here is M2 heavy industrial zone. So, it's not

[1:03:17] even light industrial. It borders light industrial. Um but um uh sorry, the

[1:03:23] Yeah. So the when you consider the industry uh that we want to attract

[1:03:29] having residential properties within our heavy industrial zone or industrial zone

[1:03:34] in general is not the direction that we want to go. So I do agree with the uh uh

[1:03:39] certainly we want the development to proceed. That's why the motion is uh is

[1:03:43] approving that but not the caretaker's residence because um that the point of

[1:03:48] industrial is not to have uh is not to have residences there especially heavy

[1:03:51] industrial. >> Thank you. Anything further? Anything in

[1:03:56] closing? >> Nothing further.

[1:03:58] » Call for the question. All those in favor

[1:04:01] that is carried.

[1:04:06] Council >> will move now to uh nine administration.

[1:04:09] We've got the counts payable back at the book. All had a chance to review.

[1:04:13] Looking for a motion to approve. Councelor Heert. Second by councelor

[1:04:18] Heert. Call for the question. All those in

[1:04:21] favor? Opposed? That is carry. Council, we have the 9B financial statements for

[1:04:27] ending in July 31st, 2026. Also back of the book, looking for a

[1:04:33] motion to approve. Councelor Heert, second by councelor Stevens.

[1:04:37] » No comment. Call for the question. All those in favor?

[1:04:41] That is carrying. We got 9 C. This is reszoning bylaw 2273.

[1:04:49] This refers to 492 498 and 506 McKenzie Avenue. Council, this is third reading.

[1:04:56] Starts on page 38 in our packet. Mr. Wareen, can you please introduce this

[1:05:01] file? >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Bylaw 2273 was

[1:05:05] a proposed reszoning bylaw for uh 492 through 506 Mckenzie Avenue and the

[1:05:12] public hearing uh was completed some time ago. Uh the uh required um

[1:05:19] development agreement uh and conditions for uh for the file uh have now

[1:05:24] proceeded and are nearing completion. And uh with that, administration is

[1:05:29] prepared to recommend that council approve third reading to its bylaw

[1:05:33] subject to the execution of the development agreement.

[1:05:37] » Okay. Thank you, Mr. Wharting. Council, how would you like to proceed? Councelor

[1:05:41] Heert. >> Motion to approve

[1:05:43] » by Councelor Heert. Go ahead, Councelor. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. As indicated, this

[1:05:49] uh is the third reading. first and second reading were in March and in

[1:05:54] April of this year we had the public hearing and uh again just to uh relate

[1:06:00] to this property. There's three three properties in question. Two of them have

[1:06:03] buildings on there right now and uh there's a church to the rear. I call it

[1:06:08] a transition zone to the east and we have Bosch is to the northeast and

[1:06:14] there's number of medium density housing in the area. I believe it fits in well

[1:06:20] into the area and uh I continue to support this project.

[1:06:24] » Thank you. Anything further? >> No further comment.

[1:06:27] » Anything further council? >> Anything in closing?

[1:06:30] » Nothing. Thank you. >> Call for the question. All those in

[1:06:32] favor? That is carried. We got 9D. This is subdivision 4451

[1:06:40] 2026 9284.

[1:06:44] This is Heritage Parkway and uh it starts on page 48 on your uh

[1:06:52] in your packet. Mr. Waring, could you please introduce this file?

[1:06:56] » Uh thank you, Mr. Mayor. Subdivision file 4451-26-9284

[1:07:03] uh is being applied for uh by a Bergen on behalf of Steinbeck Campus

[1:07:07] Foundation, Inc. Uh the uh subject property is located on uh Heritage uh

[1:07:13] Parkway. Uh as it is vacant, it doesn't have a specific uh um civic address as

[1:07:19] of yet. Uh but the proposal seeks to subdivide the subject property uh to

[1:07:24] accommodate an institutional facility development. The subject property is

[1:07:29] zoned EI educational and institutional and it is designated as institutional

[1:07:33] policy area under the city's official community plan. Overall site is about

[1:07:37] 1.4 4 acres. The proposal seeks to create one new lot from the existing

[1:07:42] parcel and the existing parking lot on the site was created prior to the

[1:07:46] opening of Heritage Parkway as a public road and serves the adjacent uh Eastman

[1:07:50] Education Campus facility. Uh it is uh recommended that council approve the

[1:07:56] application under this file subject to the approval of the required variance

[1:08:00] for the site area of proposed lot 2 and subject to the city's required uh

[1:08:06] development fees policies and servicing requirements.

[1:08:11] » Thank you Mr. Wine. Council, how would you like to approve

[1:08:15] sir? >> Motion to approve.

[1:08:16] » Second by council uh Susan Penner. Go ahead.

[1:08:20] » Uh thank you Mr. Mayor. In this case here, the uh as was noted, the applicant

[1:08:23] uh is seeking to subdivide the property to for uh in into uh there's an

[1:08:28] additional lot. This accommodates institutional facility development. Um I

[1:08:33] think uh uh this has been explained well by our city manager in terms of the

[1:08:37] basic application. I don't see I don't have any concerns. Uh this is of course

[1:08:41] subject to uh to a variance for proposed law too, but uh I think it's appropriate

[1:08:46] to approve the subdivision. >> Yeah. when areas uh we come across this

[1:08:51] regularly when areas are being developed initially there's you know a guesstimate

[1:08:56] so to speak of what's going to be needed where and uh it's not uncommon for uh

[1:09:01] developers to come back to us and say you know we've noticed supply demand has

[1:09:06] shifted or you know something's changed or we have an opportunity so it's very

[1:09:11] common for us to approve you know changes to um development areas so I'll

[1:09:17] support the motion >> thank Thank you. Anything further?

[1:09:21] Anything? Close it. Call for the question. All those in favor post. That

[1:09:26] is carried. 9F. This is reszoning

[1:09:31] bylaw 2286. This is referring to 282 Henry Street.

[1:09:37] Now, council >> E.

[1:09:39] » Oh, sorry. E re Okay. Reszoning bylaw 2281. Got ahead of myself here. 330

[1:09:47] McKenzie Avenue. This is also first reading. This starts on page 71 on our

[1:09:52] in our package. Mr. Warin, could you please introduce

[1:09:57] this file? >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Zoning by

[1:10:00] 2281, as you mentioned, for property at 330 McKenzie Avenue, uh, is seeking to

[1:10:06] reszone the subject property from RLB residential low density to RMD

[1:10:11] residential medium density to permit multif family construction on the site.

[1:10:16] Uh it is recommended that council give this bylaw first reading so that a

[1:10:21] public hearing on the matter may be scheduled for later this uh fall.

[1:10:26] » Thank you Mr. Council. How would you like to proceed?

[1:10:32] » Council Per. >> Uh motion to approve.

[1:10:34] » Second by councilman. Go ahead council. >> Yes. the um approving first reading just

[1:10:41] means that it opens the what you know what's in question uh to

[1:10:48] have a public hearing so we can hear from the neighborhoods. It's not a

[1:10:51] decision on the actual project but it just opens it up uh to hear what the

[1:10:55] neighborhood uh has to say about the project and after that is when we decide

[1:11:01] what will happen. >> Thank you. Anything further council? Uh

[1:11:05] just very briefly, this is a lot that's uh one of the areas that uh we talk

[1:11:11] about frequently as on councils there. It's a it's a very deep lot in a on a

[1:11:19] collector street and that often causes uh us issues with how to develop that

[1:11:25] and uh and the neighboring properties. So it will be interesting to see what

[1:11:29] comes out at uh public hearing. >> Anything further council? Go ahead,

[1:11:34] council. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I realize this is

[1:11:37] going to uh public hearing. Uh I did look at the lot. I went there and I do

[1:11:43] have some concerns as to uh right now the uh I'm not quite sure that it fits

[1:11:50] into that area. And like I said, some of this will be discussed at the public

[1:11:53] meeting. But I also noticed there's a house in the back that empties or onto

[1:11:59] the church parking lot. I don't know if anybody noticed it's in the bush there

[1:12:02] right at the very back of this property. Might even be on this property. There's

[1:12:06] a barn or a shed on there as well. So, I'm listening to I'm looking forward to

[1:12:10] uh hearing what the uh developer has to say about that.

[1:12:14] » Okay.

[1:12:19] Anything further council? Anything in closing?

[1:12:22] » No. >> Call for the question. All in favor?

[1:12:26] Opposed? That is carried. We have 9F. This is reszoning bylaw

[1:12:32] 2286. This is referring to 282 Henry Street.

[1:12:37] Again, this is also first reading. Mr. Warint, could you please introduce this

[1:12:42] file? >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Bylaw 2286 for 288

[1:12:46] Henry Street is also a proposed resoning for the subject property from RLD

[1:12:51] residential low density to RMD residential medium density. again to

[1:12:56] permit the construction of a multif family building uh on the uh subject. Uh

[1:13:01] it uh again is recommended that council give this bylaw first reading so that a

[1:13:07] public hearing may be scheduled for later this fall.

[1:13:10] » Thank you Mr. Wing. Council, how would you like to proceed? Councelor Swagster.

[1:13:15] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'll give a make a motion for first reading.

[1:13:18] » Do we have a second or second by councelor Bill Heert? Go ahead.

[1:13:22] » Uh thank you, Mr. Mayor. As uh uh often happens, this is an application to

[1:13:27] reszone from residential low density to residential medium density. This is

[1:13:31] first reading, which means that if we give first reading that it enables a

[1:13:35] public hearing to be scheduled and so it's at the public hearing that we'll

[1:13:38] hear from the applicant and also from the neighborhood.

[1:13:42] » Anything further? >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh it seems like

[1:13:44] everybody wants to go from low density to medium density and this is just

[1:13:48] another one, but uh we look forward to the public hearing and see what the what

[1:13:51] the neighborhood has to say. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anything for Go ahead.

[1:13:55] » Again, I'd like to voice some concerns I have regarding this development here. Uh

[1:14:00] Hospital Street is a very busy street. It's the emergency vehicles uh going to

[1:14:05] the hospital, the police, and uh much of the area is low density. Traffic is very

[1:14:10] heavy in that area. We've as council, we've also talked in the past about even

[1:14:14] making that a one-way street. That didn't go very far, that conversation.

[1:14:19] But, uh, I do have concerns, uh, of the heavy traffic and I'm just wondering if

[1:14:24] we shouldn't have that traffic steady before that building goes in because

[1:14:27] it's 12 units. >> Okay.

[1:14:32] Anything further of council, anything closing?

[1:14:35] » Uh, just very briefly, Mr. Mayor, I'm sure that uh, Council He will raise all

[1:14:39] these things during the public hearing uh, when second reading is being

[1:14:43] considered.

[1:14:46] » Yes, council. Um this is why we have first reading so it can go to a public

[1:14:51] hearing so we can um invite the neighborhood if there are any that have

[1:14:56] concerns or questions. This is where it all gets talked about at at the uh and

[1:15:01] but it starts here at first reading. Call for the question. All those in

[1:15:04] favor that is carry. We have G 9G. This is Adeptus Advisory Group Charter

[1:15:13] Professional Accountants Inc. This is their proposal for auditing services for

[1:15:18] December 26th. And we got to do this by resolution. We've had them uh they've

[1:15:23] been doing our uh our audits for for a few years now. Uh I think we've been

[1:15:29] pretty happy with this. And this is a uh this is a quote for what the audit will

[1:15:34] be for 2026 if I'm correct. Council, how would you like to proceed?

[1:15:42] » Motion to approve. Second by councelor Hebert. Go ahead council.

[1:15:49] » I'm excited to that the future council read what the audit will be.

[1:15:55] » You sound like it. [laughter] >> Future council.

[1:15:59] » I can't add to that. Thank you. [laughter]

[1:16:03] » Okay. Call for the question. All those in favor?

[1:16:07] That is carried. Council, we have come upon council

[1:16:12] question period. Are there any questions of councel?

[1:16:18] Seeing none, we'll move on to correspondence petitions. We've got 11A

[1:16:23] on page 102. This is the uh Royal Bank of Canada temporary structure request.

[1:16:29] Uh council, how would you like to proceed? Take his information at this

[1:16:33] time. >> Do we need a motion?

[1:16:35] » We need a motion. >> Have a question.

[1:16:39] » Okay. >> Yeah, we need a motion.

[1:16:43] Okay. Um, Mr. Worky, would you introduce this file?

[1:16:49] » Yes, I can gladly do so. Uh, this one is unusual. It was uh not quite certain

[1:16:55] where in the agenda to uh present this and it landed up in correspondence, but

[1:16:59] I do have a report. >> Okay.

[1:17:01] » Uh there is a unique uh along with the letter of request uh there is uh it is a

[1:17:08] unique circumstance. Uh the existing uh RBC location at the corner of Rhymer

[1:17:14] Avenue and Main Street uh is uh a fairly old property and the building has been

[1:17:21] built uh essentially to the rear property line. While there is an

[1:17:25] existing exit door that exits the west side of the property uh due to some

[1:17:29] operational considerations, uh the uh management of RBC has

[1:17:36] requested permission to install uh a u an accessible um

[1:17:43] ramp at that exit door uh for uh life safety uh uh considerations for its

[1:17:52] staff. uh as this uh proposed location of the accessible ramp would be on a uh

[1:18:00] u formal public rightway and essentially a roadway. Uh this is unique

[1:18:05] circumstance. It uh it doesn't follow fall under normal uh permitting uh or

[1:18:11] land use um application provisions. Um the most similar scenario that uh

[1:18:18] administration could come up with was the uh temporary or seasonal permit uh

[1:18:24] or permission that council has approved for the main street uh patios on main

[1:18:28] street of which there are three uh presently uh functioning in Steinach. Um

[1:18:35] recommendation from administration is that council could uh consider this uh

[1:18:39] request u in a similar manner. Um and uh with respect to uh to the ask uh it is

[1:18:48] recommended that council approve this request for an accessible ramp uh for

[1:18:51] emergency use only uh to be permitted on the public roadway at the location

[1:18:56] identified uh subject to an annual administrative permit application review

[1:19:00] and approval process. >> Thank you Mr. Council. How would you

[1:19:05] like to proceed? >> Council Pinter

[1:19:08] » motion to approve. >> Second by councelor Heert. Any comments?

[1:19:13] Well, this may be complicated uh from an administrative perspective in terms of

[1:19:17] figuring out where this goes. I think it's st pretty straightforward in terms

[1:19:20] of an accessibility perspective. Obviously, we want um our you know

[1:19:27] buildings infrastructure in our community to be accessible and this is

[1:19:31] particularly important because it's for emergency use. So, I think it's actually

[1:19:35] a relatively straightforward request. Um and in addition, if you look at the

[1:19:40] photos, there's a dumpster right there. It's not like vehicle traffic is going

[1:19:43] right by that door. Anyways, that is why I made the motion.

[1:19:49] » Thank you. Anything further? >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think safety is

[1:19:52] probably the word that we're looking at here and emergency ramp would definitely

[1:19:57] fall to that and uh as councelor Penner has stated the the reasons are they make

[1:20:03] sense. So, I would definitely approve. >> Council, thank Mr. Mayor. I'll support

[1:20:09] this as well. I mean, I think that if we are going to approve um patios on city

[1:20:15] rightway, I don't think it's unreasonable to have a similar allowance

[1:20:20] for a ramp for accessibility and safety. So, absolutely, this is an easy one to

[1:20:25] approve.

[1:20:28] » Anything further, council, anything in closing?

[1:20:31] » Well, I I do have maybe one question. Um, in terms of having to get a permit

[1:20:35] every year, is that reasonable or can we just approve it and can just or is that

[1:20:40] just an issue because we don't know where it fits in?

[1:20:43] » Administratively, it is preferable that it's subject to an annual permit. Uh,

[1:20:48] there are specific operational uh conditions that exist today uh that

[1:20:53] didn't exist before and that could also change in the future. Uh, and then it uh

[1:20:58] it it permits the uh the ramp to be removed if it's no longer required at

[1:21:02] some point. >> All right. Thank you.

[1:21:04] » Okay. Okay. Well, council, I I also agree with all the comments that have

[1:21:09] been said. So, call for the question. All those in favor?

[1:21:13] That is carried. We've got uh 11B, the St. Rat Rosa watershed

[1:21:19] district minutes of June 16th, June 17th, June 23rd, July 20th, and July

[1:21:26] 21st. Uh, council, how would you like to proceed? Take his information at this

[1:21:31] time. >> Thank you. There's no other business.

[1:21:34] Looking for a motion to adjurnn. >> Councelor Heert, second by councelor

[1:21:39] Semons. Call for the question. All those in favor? Opposed? That as carried. Next

[1:21:44] regular council meeting is Tuesday, September 15th.

Regular City Council Meeting - September 1, 2026

Transcript